While most of this is true, it applies far wider than just to "staff engineers". How much influence and direction you can assert hugely depends on how much trust and autonomy you are given by your manager even if you are a VP of engineering, Director of Engineering, a Technical Lead, an Architect or even a Senior or non-Senior engineer. I've seen cases where each of them could significantly influence mid-size company technical direction, but also get ignored.
And come to thing of it, I've seen it play out in Product Management, Design and even C-level suites.
Obviously, those in higher positions have more experience recognizing lack of alignment so they "part ways" sooner rather than later.
I'd just assumed that in any company large enough to have "staff engineers", everything existed in a system of patronage?
(that's pure speculation: my MO is to start looking for the exits as the company threatens to grow past 30, with the aim of being long gone by the time it goes past 100)
A startup of 5 people likely exists in a "system of patronage". And I don't think that in a negative sense: 2 people will sometimes be equal in their abilities or have their distinct domains they are experts at, but as soon as their opinions clash significantly, they either continue with one being dominant, or separate. Just look at the number of fallouts between best-friend founders.
It's extremely rare that both will exude similar approach to collaboration and compromise equally (and perceive it as equally) to keep a stable business relationship.
That's just human, and what enables things to move forward (other option is death by commitee).
And come to thing of it, I've seen it play out in Product Management, Design and even C-level suites.
Obviously, those in higher positions have more experience recognizing lack of alignment so they "part ways" sooner rather than later.